THE 1992 ELECTIONS: DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke; Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be

By STEVEN A. HOLMES,

Published: November 5, 1992

DALLAS, Nov. 4—
Ross Perot, a political neophyte who said and did enough bizarre things during the Presidential campaign to allow his critics to brand him as an eccentric or worse, scored a more impressive showing than any third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket 80 years ago.

More than 19 million people voted for him Tuesday. And though he personally campaigned in only 16 states, Mr. Perot received more than 20 percent of the vote in 31. He actually finished second in Utah. He finished third in every other state, but in one, Maine, he pulled 30 percent of the vote.

A performance that strong tempts speculation about what might have been. What if Mr. Perot had stayed in the race through the summer and fall instead of dropping out for months? What if he had not appeared on "60 Minutes" the week before the election and made unsubstantiated accusations about the Republican Party and his daughter's wedding? Money Was No Problem

To be sure, some of Mr. Perot's strength must be laid to his own formidable resources. Third-party or independent candidates of the past could not buy half-hours on all three networks as if they were campaign buttons, and they generally could not afford to subsidize the effort to get themselves on the ballot in all 50 states. Mr. Perot could not have done what he did without his own tens of millions, as he would be the first to acknowledge.

Still, the public was under no obligation to respond to his appeal, and it does appear that Mr. Perot may have mobilized a brand new army, one that is primarily under 45 and one that considers itself neither Republican nor Democrat, but independent -- all the more fitting since Mr. Perot did not run on a party label.

The Perot army is overwhelmingly white. Mr. Perot did best in states where the black population is below the national average of 12 percent, receiving 22.7 percent of the vote in those states. In states where the black population is above average, Mr. Perot received 13.1 percent of the vote.

Thirty-four states have black populations below 12 percent. In 16 states and the District of Columbia, more than 12 percent of the population is black.

A deep distrust of politicians is another distinguishing mark of Mr. Perot's camp. In interviews with voters leaving the polls, conducted by Voter Research and Surveys, 57 percent of the Perot voters agreed that the Government would work better if the voters got rid of all elected officials and selected new ones this year. By comparison, 48 percent of all voters surveyed felt that way. Can't Even Stop It

What the Perot partisans will do, with or without him, is a question that is no doubt nagging leaders of both major parties. In a briefing today, Perot aides made clear they intend to try to turn United We Stand, America, the grass-roots organization Mr. Perot helped found and nurture, into a permanent group.

"Are we going to keep this thing going?" said Orson G. Swindle 3d, executive director of the organization and Mr. Perot's campaign manager. "In all candor, there's no way we can stop it. This is truly a phenomenon that is unparalleled in the history of our country, politically."

Mr. Swindle's prideful sentiments notwithstanding, the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush. A Breeze, Not a Storm

"Perot may have breathed some fresh air into the campaign, in terms of his personality, but the outcome doesn't appear to have been influenced by him at all," said David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Whether United We Stand will continue to play a significant role is a question. The group languished between the time Mr. Perot quit the race in July and his re-entry last month. And on Tuesday and today, Ross Perot Jr. left little doubt his father would rather be on the sidelines.

But the large block of angry and energized Perot voters, having seen the strength of their numbers and having had their frustrations and their concern about the economy and the budget deficit articulated, will be a factor to be considered by Mr. Clinton as he waltzes gingerly between deficit reduction and fiscal stimulation. Interviews at Mr. Perot's rallies indicate that many of his followers are small-business owners, and Mr. Clinton may have to be careful if he tries to impose a raft of government mandates on them. Guaranteed a Voice

Charles Jones, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, took note of the Perot potential: "Any time he wants to serve as a kind of monitor of the new administration, he can do that by buying TV time. Or he could just go on Larry King or the rest of the talk shows."

If Bill Clinton must look over his shoulder, neither can the Republican Party, now picking its way through the wreckage of what used to be its winning coalition, take any joy in Mr. Perot's looming presence.

Certainly Mr. Perot espoused a kind of fiscal conservatism and toward the end of his campaign a strong law-and-order theme. But he also drew cheers when he staunchly defended a woman's right to choose an abortion and when he bashed the religious right. Indeed, in the voter survey, only 34 percent of Mr. Perot's voters said they attended religious services at least once a week, compared with 42 percent in the survey sample as a whole.

Mr. Perot's army seems to include a strong libertarian streak: people seeking a measure of freedom from what they perceive as the heavy hand of institutions, religious as well as governmental. If the fundamentalist right holds sway in the coming battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Perot followers could go elsewhere. A Moderate, in Fact

"What was different about Ross Perot is that he was a moderate," said Frank I. Luntz, who served as Mr. Perot's poll taker early in the campaign and predicted that the Texan would get 20 percent of the vote. "How often do we have a third-party candidate who is a moderate?"

Mr. Perot also demonstrated that voters yearned for information on candidates without having to sift it through the traditional filter of the news media. His use of talk shows and the consistently high ratings of his 30-minute and hourlong commercials indicated a voter preference for direct communication from the candidate, for substance over attacks or mawkish advertisements.

"We showed that you don't have to run 30-second or one-minute ads; 'Good Morning America,' or 'Morning in America' -- gauzy commercials that look like you're selling margarine," said Clayton Mulford, the campaign's general counsel and Mr. Perot's son-in-law.

Some experts say that it will be virtually impossible for a candidate to duplicate Mr. Perot's effort unless he has a personal fortune and finds the country once again in such a foul mood. But if the Republican and Democratic parties conclude that they can ignore the lessons of the Ross Perot phenomenon, they will do so at their peril.